Subject: guestserver

From: Kent Landfield <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 16:45:00 -0600 (CST)

guestserver does not seem to be documented in the man page.  Is this
a permanent feature or a short lived one ?

This is what I grabbed from the code.

-----------------------------
  guestserver [<machine1> [<machineN>]]

      If present in the ftpaccess file anonymous access is restricted to 
      the machines listed, usually the machine whose CNAME on the current 
      domain is "ftp"...
        
         "guestserver" by itself forbids anonymous access on all machines.

         "guestserver ftp inf" will allow anonymous access from the two 
          machines whose CNAMES are "ftp.enst.fr" and "inf.enst.fr".
        
      If anonymous access is denied on the current machine, the user will 
      be asked to use the first machine listed (if any) on the "guestserver" 
      line instead:

        530- Guest login not allowed on this machine,
              connect to ftp.enst.fr instead.
-----------------------------

Should this be supported as part of the virtual FTP support ?

-- 
Kent Landfield                        Phone: 1-817-545-2502             
The Landfield Group                   FAX:   1-817-545-7650             
Email: [email-masked]             http://www.landfield.com/
Please send comp.sources.misc related mail to [email-masked].
Search the Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive at http://www.landfield.com/faqs/

---

From: Alain Magloire <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 14:17:35 -0500 (EST)

Bonjour Mr Kent Landfield
> 
> guestserver does not seem to be documented in the man page.

the documentation is out of date on many issues.

> Is this a permanent feature or a short lived one ?

This hack writthen by Nicolas Pioch been part of the code
as far as I can remember. I don't see why it should be change.

>   guestserver [<machine1> [<machineN>]]

...

> Should this be supported as part of the virtual FTP support ?

???
maybe a little more info on the behaviour you want to add

wu-ftpd is suffering from a major attack of ``creeping featurism''
even after the clean up of *_H, Barber and all the people in this list/net.

It has a straight lineage from the BSD code,
I thought I'd see the end of it with the raise of HTTP 
but it seems ageless :-)

-- 
au revoir, alain
_______P_________O____________I______R___________E___
POIRE: Premature Optimization Is the Root of all Evil
                     D.K or is it B.K ? maybe A.M ;-)

---

From: Jim Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 12:48:40 -0700 (MST)

> I thought I'd see the end of it with the raise of HTTP 

Ftp is alive and well in our department, but the traffic level hasn't
increased recently, while the http traffic keeps zooming up.  In fact I'm
delaying installing beta-13 because I'm moving our web server to a bigger
machine today to keep up... 

Eventually the various papers and programs our faculty have traditionally
put up for anonymous ftp will migrate to the web server.  But I think
that'll take several years, at least.  I don't think anonymous ftp servers
will go away anytime soon.

Though as recently as 1995 gopher still seemed to be big, and now...

---

From: David Greenman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 12:10:59 -0800

>increased recently, while the http traffic keeps zooming up.

   My experiance at ftp.cdrom.com (wcarchive) isn't the same. It's been a
continuous struggle to keep up with the increasing demand. We started out
with a anonymous user limit of 150 users back in 1994, and today we often
hit the limit of 1600 users during the peak period of the day. The bits/
second going out has been scaling along with the increased user load, with
the current daytime traffic at around 25Mbps. At the current growth rate of
100% per year, we'll have to support 10,000 simultaneous users by the year
2000...and we'll need something faster than 100Mbit ethernet. The biggest
bottleneck in the growth has consistently been main memory. I've worked
very hard to reduce the memory requirements of ftpd - I've cut it in half,
but even so, we can't increase the current limit beyond 1600 users until we
replace all of the memory (512MB) with higher capacity SIMMs.

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project

---

From: Michael Brennen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 14:24:58 -0600 (CST)

Just curious -- what is the iron driving 1600 users?  Must be a T3 to
handle 25Mbps.

   -- Michael

---

From: David Greenman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 12:33:37 -0800

>Just curious -- what is the iron driving 1600 users?  Must be a T3 to

   We have a 100Mbit ethernet connection to a (fast ethernet) switch that
connects to CRL's core routers, which in turn have DS3 connections to PB-NAP,
MAE-west, MAE-east, and CIX-SMDS. We currently default all the traffic to
a single router which then redirects the traffic to the other routers,
but a plan has been proposed to run gated/BGP and take a full routing
table (about 17,000 routes) so that we can talk to each of the routers
directly.

-DG

David Greenman